.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?
I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.
In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.
Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?
Does God condone slavery TODAY?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Does God condone slavery TODAY?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #121
No.JLB32168 wrote: Did it entail capital punishment for the slave catcher?
claim that there is death penalty for a slave catcher in the Hebrew practice is still being disputed. Again I ask you, do you see the difference between "don't return fugitive slaves that has come to live amongst you," and "don't try to get your own fugitive slaves back?"Were you able to find any example of the death penalty for a slave catcher at any time in history outside of the Hebrew practice?
No.Does sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sound typical or atypical the institution of slavery?
We are talking about debt slavery here, having your debt paid means exactly that.So you would have to pay a fine for doing those things. Indeed, there’s nothing about automatic manumission, which was Hebrew practice.
Look closer, follow the links, it depends on the amount of money involved it can be as little as one year.Your source says nothing about manumission after seven years...
No, but it is typical to give a day of rest to slaves.So it is typical for societies to sentence a man to the death penalty for violating the Sabbath and by forcing a slave to work on the Sabbath (or any other day regarded as a holy day)?
But it doesn't say that at all.The Bible sentences a man to death for kidnapping – which is what slave-catching is.
Don't know which verse you are referring to, but both Exodus 21:16 is and Deuteronomy 24:7 is about slave takers and not slave-catching.The provision is provided in the midst of an entire section dealing with slavery.
No, but since you are disputing it, quote your post. I looked and didn't see anything.I dispute the assertion that I didn’t provide them here, but let’s assume I’m recalling discussions on another thread. Are you seriously going to base an argument upon such an immaterial point??
I suppose not, but again, that interpretation was provided by 2 apologetic sites I found.Is that the only thing that it can mean?
Yes, because escaped slaves from the same place would be recaptured.Since foreigners have not been mentioned prior to that or even immediately after that, it is unreasonable to assume that the riter meant to interject “foreign land� into the text??
Another town is a foreign land, people back then don't travel a lot.Yes, but you said that coming to your town/city only meant coming from a foreign country when clearly there were a multitude of Hebrew towns/cities.
But property non the less.The slave was considered a wo/man and not just simple property.
I am not assume such a thing. I am making the distinction between taking a freeman and making him a slave, and catching an escaped slave.The verse on kidnapping occurs in the midst of other things on slavery.
It is unreasonable to assume that this kidnapping is disconnected from the text around it.
You want to talk about reasonable - again I ask you, is it reasonable to be able to think an economy can function when one can wipe off any debt by selling yourself as a slave, then immediately manumitting without consequences?
I also want to point out that again, you didn't respond to my challenge that female and foreign slaves where treated different to male Hebrew slaves.
That it is absurd should have been enough for you to know that is not what I was suggesting. I was talking about locking them up at night.The suggestion that a chained slave was supposed to work a field of wheat, feed and water animals and/or drive them to pasture, and/or chop wood and draw water from a well (unless you’re going to suggest that the chains were three hundred feet in length) is absurd on its face.
Post #122
Slave catchers kidnap their bounty. Kidnapping is a capital crime in the Hebrew confederation. Slave catchers commit a capital crime. It’s actually quite easy.Bust Nak wrote:[Your] claim that there is death penalty for a slave catcher in the Hebrew practice is still being disputed.
The question didn’t require a yes/no. It asked if sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sounded typical or atypical.Bust Nak wrote:No.
Your citation stated that if another man – not a slave – committed some crime against your slave then that man had to pay you money for it. It says nothing about hurting a slave and then manumitting him for it. Your source says debt slavery enslaved a man until he paid of the debt. If the payment was never met then the enslaved condition lasted to the next generation. Hebrew slavery; however, manumitted the man after seven years regardless of whether or not the debt was paid (since the debt was also canceled after seven years.)Bust Nak wrote:We are talking about debt slavery here, having your debt paid means exactly that.
Hebrew slaves were given one day off per week and more often if a religious holiday occurred. Failure to render such a rest period was a capital crime. The owner would be stoned to death (which of course manumitted the slave.)Bust Nak wrote:No, but it is typical to give a day of rest to slaves.
If a slave fled to a town then he was granted sanctuary. You implied or outright said that this didn’t mean Hebrew slaves but slaves from foreign lands because “town� meant “foreign� as in “not Hebrew.� You can’t get that from the text. You are supplementing the text with your own spin since it doesn’t say what you want it to say.Bust Nak wrote:Another town is a foreign land people back then don't travel a lot.
Property cannot flee and remain free under pain of death.Bust Nak wrote:But property non the less.
You are saying that kidnapping doesn’t address slave-catching – that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned. The text says “kidnapping.� It’s makes no distinction between slave and free. You are interjecting your own bias into the verse to avoid saying, “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�Bust Nak wrote:I am making the distinction between taking a freeman and making him a slave, and catching an escaped slave.
No – I agree that they can be treated differently. They can be sold to foreigners – unlike Hebrew slaves. Hebrews couldn’t sell Hebrews to foreigners. That said, Gentile slaves were still free to feel their masters and if they fled to another Hebrew city the inhabitants of that city could not harass him/her under pain of death and kidnapping him/her also incurred the death penalty.Bust Nak wrote:I also want to point out that again, you didn't respond to my challenge that female and foreign slaves where treated different to male Hebrew slaves.
So he would have to feel during the day.Bust Nak wrote:I was talking about locking them up at night.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #123
So you'd like us to believe, do cops kidnap criminals? Or are there some forms of taking people that does not qualify as kidnapping?JLB32168 wrote: Slave catchers kidnap their bounty. Kidnapping is a capital crime in the Hebrew confederation. Slave catchers commit a capital crime. It’s actually quite easy.
Sorry, misread. It sounds atypical.The question didn’t require a yes/no. It asked if sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sounded typical or atypical.
That's not what it says at all. Come on. It says if an owner committed some crime against his slave then the money he spent of buying the slave is forfeited. "Employing a slave to.... shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her."Your citation stated that if another man – not a slave – committed some crime against your slave then that man had to pay you money for it.
That's quite barbaric.Hebrew slaves were given one day off per week and more often if a religious holiday occurred. Failure to render such a rest period was a capital crime. The owner would be stoned to death (which of course manumitted the slave.)
I didn't say or imply that. I was highlighting the fact that a slave (Hebrew or otherwise,) would have to escape all the way to another town. Why? Because there would be serious consequence if the owner catches him. The point was the verse does not forbid slave owner from catching escaped slaves.If a slave fled to a town then he was granted sanctuary. You implied or outright said that this didn’t mean Hebrew slaves but slaves from foreign lands because “town� meant “foreign� as in “not Hebrew.�
If manumission was as simple as you'd like us to think, there wouldn't be any verses dealing with slavery other than to say slaves can choose to become free men at will.
The point about kidnapping and slave-catching is still not resolved.Property cannot flee and remain free under pain of death.
That's right.You are saying that kidnapping doesn’t address slave-catching – that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned.
So what? You are still equating kidnapping with slave-catching.The text says “kidnapping.� It’s makes no distinction between slave and free.
No, you are interjecting your own bias into the verse to conclude that “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�You are interjecting your own bias into the verse to avoid saying, “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�
Come now, is that the only difference?No – I agree that they can be treated differently. They can be sold to foreigners – unlike Hebrew slaves. Hebrews couldn’t sell Hebrews to foreigners.
But it does not forbid a owner from catching him.That said, Gentile slaves were still free to feel their masters and if they fled to another Hebrew city the inhabitants of that city could not harass him/her under pain of death and kidnapping him/her also incurred the death penalty.
That's where armed guards would be handy.So he would have to feel during the day.
Post #124
You may not harass a slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death unless you’re the slave’s owner in which case the rules don’t apply to you. That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.Bust Nak wrote:So you'd like us to believe, do cops kidnap criminals? Or are there some forms of taking people that does not qualify as kidnapping?
Okay – so you forfeited the value you paid. That speaks to money – not manumission of the slave. The Hebrew conscriptions explicitly demand manumission for severe beatings.Bust Nak wrote:It says if an owner committed some crime against his slave then the money he spent of buying the slave is forfeited. "Employing a slave to.... shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her."
That’s a separate question. The question before us now is if the Hebrew practice of slavery was typical or atypical. Capital punishment for forcing a slave to work on a day of rest or on a feast day is atypical for a time when a slave owner in other cultures had absolute power over a slaves life and could kill him/her w/impunity.Bust Nak wrote:That's quite barbaric.
Except you’ve not demonstrated that slave catching didn’t qualify as kidnapping. Seizure of a person with the intent of taking him somewhere else is kidnapping. That the relationship of slave/master is exempt is nowhere in the text.Bust Nak wrote:I was highlighting the fact that a slave (Hebrew or otherwise,) would have to escape all the way to another town. Why? Because there would be serious consequence if the owner catches him. The point was the verse does not forbid slave owner from catching escaped slaves.
That IS NOT what the text says.Bust Nak wrote:That's right. [i.e. that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned.]
You’ve already admitted in your latest post that it was atypical for the Bronze Age.Bust Nak wrote:No, you are interjecting your own bias into the verse to conclude that “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�
No – there are a whole lot of other differences between most Bronze age forms of slavery and it’s Hebrew counterpart, which is why I said that Hebrew slavery was atypical for the time and which you’ve accidentally admitted is true.Bust Nak wrote:Come now, is that the only difference?
Riiiight – because capturing a man and forcibly taking him somewhere isn’t kidnapping (except that’s not what the text says.)Bust Nak wrote:But it does not forbid a owner from catching him.
So most Hebrew nomads had armed guards??Bust Nak wrote:That's where armed guards would be handy.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #125
You may not recapture your own escaped slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.JLB32168 wrote: You may not harass a slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death unless you’re the slave’s owner in which case the rules don’t apply to you. That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.
Again this is debt slavery, forfeiting the money mean exactly that.Okay – so you forfeited the value you paid. That speaks to money – not manumission of the slave. The Hebrew conscriptions explicitly demand manumission for severe beatings.
I will concede that much. I've looked and can find no other examples of capital punishment for not giving a day of rest for slaves.That’s a separate question. The question before us now is if the Hebrew practice of slavery was typical or atypical. Capital punishment for forcing a slave to work on a day of rest or on a feast day is atypical for a time when a slave owner in other cultures had absolute power over a slaves life and could kill him/her w/impunity.
All I need to do is point out that an economy cannot operate for long if a debt can be written off by the debtor at will without consent from the creditor.Except you’ve not demonstrated that slave catching didn’t qualify as kidnapping. Seizure of a person with the intent of taking him somewhere else is kidnapping. That the relationship of slave/master is exempt is nowhere in the text.
The text doesn't say slave-catching is punishable by death either. Moreover, the text explicitly mentioned selling the kidnapped for money. It's clearly talking about making new slaves as opposed to slave-catching.That IS NOT what the text says.
No, I am saying it is typical in general, point out specific difference that is atypical doesn't help your case, when I can point out that slaves can be beaten, bought and sold as properties, some are owned as slaves for life, and children can be born into slavery.You’ve already admitted in your latest post that it was atypical for the Bronze Age.
I was referring to difference between the Hebrew treatment of male Hebrew slaves and the Hebrew treatment of female Hebrew slaves, as well as non-Hebrew slave of either gender; as opposed to difference between Hebrew treatment of slaves vs non-Hebrew treatment of slaves.No – there are a whole lot of other differences between most Bronze age forms of slavery and it’s Hebrew counterpart, which is why I said that Hebrew slavery was atypical for the time and which you’ve accidentally admitted is true.
You know full well it isn't always the case when you didn't give me a straight answer for my question with cops kidnapping criminals.Riiiight – because capturing a man and forcibly taking him somewhere isn’t kidnapping.
Those who can afford slaves? Sure.So most Hebrew nomads had armed guards??
Post #126
We have to look at the more likely option of the two, BK. If a slave is beaten, s/he can fake severe injuries for forty-eight hours and s/he’s automatically manumitted; the owner can protest until s/he’s blue in the face and those protests will fall on deaf ears. If s/he loses a tooth or an eye because of an owner’s maliciousness then s/he is manumitted. The slave has a much wider berth than the owner. If the text says “You may not return him or harass him� then it is simply unreasonable to assume that it also implies “unless you’re the owner; if you are then all bets are off and you can do as you will – beat the stuffing out of him for fleeing so he learns not to do it again.�Bust Nak wrote:You may not recapture your own escaped slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.
Then I have sustained my assertion that the Hebrew institution was atypical.Bust Nak wrote:I will concede that much. I've looked and can find no other examples of capital punishment for not giving a day of rest for slaves.
We’re arguing what the text says, Dude. It says that debts are forgiven and slaves are released.Bust Nak wrote:All I need to do is point out that an economy cannot operate for long if a debt can be written off by the debtor at will without consent from the creditor.
How do you say it’s typical??? Slave owners die if they work their slave every day of the week. If a religious festival falls during the week then the slave gets two or more off days and the slave owner dies if s/he violates that directive.Bust Nak wrote:No, I am saying it is typical in general, point out specific difference that is atypical doesn't help your case, when I can point out that slaves can be beaten, bought and sold as properties . . .
Different sets of criteria are still different, BK. You’ve not considered the fact that a slave was given the option of remaining with a family – presumably because s/he treated the slave well. There was a specific rite involved that made the condition permanent.Bust Nak wrote:I was referring to difference between the Hebrew treatment of male Hebrew slaves and the Hebrew treatment of female Hebrew slaves, as well as non-Hebrew slave of either gender; as opposed to difference between Hebrew treatment of slaves vs non-Hebrew treatment of slaves.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #127
You assume the judges or elders are easily fooled and would not listen to the plead of the owner. Just beat him according to the guidelines given: Must be able to walk afterwards, no eyes or teeth injuries.JLB32168 wrote: We have to look at the more likely option of the two, BK. If a slave is beaten, s/he can fake severe injuries for forty-eight hours and s/he’s automatically manumitted. the owner can protest until s/he’s blue in the face and those protests will fall on deaf ears. If s/he loses a tooth or an eye because of an owner’s maliciousness then s/he is manumitted.
I am not assuming that, it clearly is addressing a third party. It says thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.If the text says “You may not return him or harass him� then it is simply unreasonable to assume that it also implies “unless you’re the owner; if you are then all bets are off and you can do as you will – beat the stuffing out of him for fleeing so he learns not to do it again.�
Atypical in some aspects but typical in other aspects.Then I have sustained my assertion that the Hebrew institution was atypical.
We ARE arguing what the text say, Dude. It does not say running/escaping was effective manumission.We’re arguing what the text says, Dude. It says that debts are forgiven and slaves are released.
We have to look at the more likely option of the two, a form of slavery that have checks and balances that makes monetary sense, or a form of slavery that has no serious consequence for one party ignoring the contract?
It is typical because other slaves gets days off for rest just like Hebrew treatment of slaves.How do you say it’s typical??? Slave owners die if they work their slave every day of the week. If a religious festival falls during the week then the slave gets two or more off days and the slave owner dies if s/he violates that directive.
Or perhaps the prospect of leaving his wife and children behind as slaves while he goes free, was just too much to bear?Different sets of criteria are still different, BK. You’ve not considered the fact that a slave was given the option of remaining with a family – presumably because s/he treated the slave well. There was a specific rite involved that made the condition permanent.
You have also seemed to have missed my point - I was trying to point out that the Hebrew treatment of foreign slaves is much more typical of slavery, even if one were to take what you've argued for here on face value.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #128
That is because prisoners of war are presumed to be belligerents. There is a pathway to citizenship. Basically, pledging to not be a belligerent and accept the rule of law. This would effectively change this status.Bust Nak wrote:
You have also seemed to have missed my point - I was trying to point out that the Hebrew treatment of foreign slaves is much more typical of slavery, even if one were to take what you've argued for here on face value.
Post #129
I think you overestimate the ability of people in the Bronze Age to judge if another person’s injuries are real.Bust Nak wrote:You assume the judges or elders are easily fooled and would not listen to the plead of the owner. Just beat him according to the guidelines given: Must be able to walk afterwards, no eyes or teeth injuries.
How do you infer from this that delivering a slave to his master is wrong, but the master may retrieve him? People who kill may flee to a city and the murder victim’s family cannot pursue him, capture, and get revenge or they’ll be stoned for it. Anyone who bothers a runaway slave will be stoned for it. People fleeing are clearly given the upper hand. To say that things would suddenly switch for the slave owner seems incongruity.Bust Nak wrote:I am not assuming that, it clearly is addressing a third party. It says thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.
I was only interested in explaining how I could say that it atypical because you implied that Hebrew slavery wasn’t appreciably different from any other society’s practice of it.Bust Nak wrote:Atypical in some aspects but typical in other aspects.
If you can’t return him and you cannot bother him then how is that anything other than effective freedom??Bust Nak wrote:We ARE arguing what the text say, Dude. It does not say running/escaping was effective manumission.
First of all, you don’t know if other slaves get days off. You certainly don’t know if they get off one day a week and more if there is a religious holiday. You certainly don’t know if any other society said that slave owner incurs the death penalty if he fails to give his slaves a day off.Bust Nak wrote:It is typical because other slaves gets days off for rest just like Hebrew treatment of slaves.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9863
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #130
No more than you are overestimate their willingness to trust a slave on his words. Again, if Hebrew slavery manumission was as trivial as you want us to believe, there wouldn't be provision for dealing with it, other than to say slaves can choose to be free at will.JLB32168 wrote:I think you overestimate the ability of people in the Bronze Age to judge if another person’s injuries are real.
Why do you need a clause about eye or tooth injury when at the slightest inconvenience to the slave, he can just say "for the record, I am escaping" and just like that he has freed himself.
I don't need to infer that. It literally does not say the master may not retrieve him. Your thesis makes zero sense economically, plus you have to make more inference than I do textually.How do you infer from this that delivering a slave to his master is wrong, but the master may retrieve him?
As an aside we are not talking about right and wrong, but legal and illegal.
What's this about suddenly switching? People fleeing might have the upper hand once they've arrived at the sanctuary, nothing is mentioned for them having the upper hand before they have escaped to said sanctuary.People who kill may flee to a city and the murder victim’s family cannot pursue him, capture, and get revenge or they’ll be stoned for it. Anyone who bothers a runaway slave will be stoned for it. People fleeing are clearly given the upper hand. To say that things would suddenly switch for the slave owner seems incongruity.
And it isn't. Provision for beating, provision for retaining children as slaves, provision for trading and inheriting slaves as properties.I was only interested in explaining how I could say that it atypical because you implied that Hebrew slavery wasn’t appreciably different from any other society’s practice of it.
But you can catch him before he got too far or better yet prevent him from escaping in the first place.If you can’t return him and you cannot bother him then how is that anything other than effective freedom??
And you don't know if any of that applies to Hebrew, you and I are only going by what we read.First of all, you don’t know if other slaves get days off. You certainly don’t know if they get off one day a week and more if there is a religious holiday. You certainly don’t know if any other society said that slave owner incurs the death penalty if he fails to give his slaves a day off.